Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[The Pixie]

And those are philosophical. Science only works because it has philosophical commitments that it accepts prior that are not dependent on the science.

What commitments are you talking about?

Is that a tumbleweed blowing across your argument?

Come on, AP, if you want to claim "philosophical commitments", have the decency to know what you are talking about, and to be able to express it.

Once again, why should I think that because someone has an opinion on something, they are not dealing with matters of facts?

To be consistent with your earlier statement?

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

I take it you have now abandoned that somewhat farcical position as entirely untenable. Quite right too.

It has always been my position that people can have opinions on matters of fact.

Naturalism is utterly bankrupt on this regard.

Why do you mention naturalism?

Because if we hold to the reality of goodness and love and realities of that sort, then a naturalistic framework will not explain those.

Sorry, still not getting why you brought it up.

Wait, you don't think naturalism and a naturalistic framework are the same thing, do you?

No more than labeling a view as opinion makes it an opinion and not something dealing with matters of fact.

Absolutely.

And as I keep pointing out, you are the one who originally said you cannot have an opinion about matters of fact.

Thankfully we are now beyond that.

Except everything here is philosophical. It's in the area of epistemology which is how we know things. Science can demonstrate some things? That's a claim of epistemology that says we can know the real world. Logic can too? That's also an epistemological claim. You say I have failed to show how philosophy can demonstrate anything? I already pointed to the laws of logic and I agree with Cornell that if X is necessarily true, non-X is necessarily false.

Then this is all part of what Tyson is talking about when he says science.

Think back to what he said. He did not say all philosophy is bunk. He said science is better than the rest. If you are arguing science rests on epistemology, then I would say that science, resting on epistemology (and logic too) is the best way we have of knowing about the world.

I also wonder if the real world includes moral truths for you or not.

Do you?

Which means they're part of a presupposed philosophy, so Tyson then doesn't know what science is or doesn't know what philosophy is.

Can you talk me through your thinking here. See, I do not recall Tyson rubbishing that presupposed philosophy - he only said science is the best way to know the world. If science includes that presupposed philosophy, then, well science includes it.

Multiple streams can tell us the same truths. How we reach those truths and see them can differ. A Platonist and an Aristotelian could agree on what the good is. They would just disagree on how it exists.

That is possible. It is also possible that a single stream will happen upon the truth. So what?

We are talking about how confident we are with the result. If any philosophy can show us what good is with a high degree of confidence, then it will beat the rest. Just tell me which one does that (and show the evidence), and I will admit defeat.

That all depends on what philosophy you bring to the table. If all that you can know is only that which is demonstrable by science, then you can never know the world exists outside your mind. Science works just fine in Berkeley's world for instance and it could conceivably work fine in the matrix and if you're a solipsist. I think of the story I heard about the Christian Science (I refer to the cult group there) professor who taught chemistry and started by saying "My religion tells me that all this matter is an illusion but it seems to work in amazingly consistent ways and I'm going to tell you about those ways in this class."

Not sure what your point is.

Why should I think that? To say it is just opinions assumes that there is no matter of fact and no opinion is closer to the truth than another.

So now you are back to your earlier claim:

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

Of course, as you noted above, people can have opinions about matters of act:

"Once again, why should I think that because someone has an opinion on something, they are not dealing with matters of facts?"

You need to get this straight in your head, AP. Pick one or the other.

My position is, and has always been, that people can have opinions about matters of fact, and so of course some will be nearer to the truth than others. Science is, as far as I can see, the best way we have to be confident about that (for general truths, anyway).

Which is simply saying philosophy is not the best because it's not science, but we know several claims about the world without having to do repeated testing. I don't have to do a test to see if love is a good and I doubt at all that that could be overturned. I would find it more believable that an accepted scientific principle would be overturned than that.

That is an interesting point. How do know that love is good? What are you actually offering here as a plausible alterative to science?

And there I was speaking of things that are a matter of opinion. Having disagreements on an issue does not mean it is a matter of opinion. Is there a fact which ice cream flavor is best? As much as I want to say anything with peanut butter, it is not so. Is there a fact as to which philosophical system best explains reality or whether there is a God or not? Yes.

So? Of course people have opinions about subjective issues such as ice cream, but they also have opinions about matters of fact. You mentioned the origin of life in an earlier post. Scientists have various opinions about how life started. Some of those opinions will be wrong, one may well be right - but we do not know which one yet.

In that case, yes, but some opinions are more informed than others and we hold them with varying degrees of certainty based on the research we've done.

That fits exactly with what I just said.

The problem of evil is still discussed and Plantinga can still discuss it for those who are not familiar with it, but it is not the same as the logical problem of evil. There are many variations of the problem of evil and no doubt there are still some atheists who think that the logical problem of evil works because they have not read the best in scholarship on the issue. It's the same way that the Christ-myth theory has been completely debunked in academic circles but you still find it being discussed in some popular writings.

You should write to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and tell them their web page on it needs updated. Inexplicably, they have neglected to mention that the logical problem of evil has now been conclusively refuted.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ev...rgEviRefDefThe

And as I have already said, philosophy can be used to refute. Science makes positive claims.

This is my view. I think most would agree with what has been said, but some few who defend moral relativism or some form of it today would not. Nietzsche most certainly would not and would even call any atheists who want to get at goodness today fools. Get rid of God and you get rid of everything connected with him. He even wanted to get rid of grammar.

Not sure how you think this supports your argument.

To what end? If something is true in literature, it is true whether you believe it or not. The same for economics, sociology, psychology, etc. It's really mind-boggling to see why some people have a hard time seeing Tyson's quote as fallacious or even as an attack on science. It's not.

If you can show how we know something is true in a field outside science, then you win the argument. To be honest, I am not even sure what you mean by "true in literature".

I think you are missing what Tyson means then. He is talking about science is a body of knowledge, rather than the laws of nature. That body of knowledge is right, whether you believe it is right or not. Is there another body of knowledge for which you can make that claim?

Yes. All of them. If anything is a fact, it is a fact whether you believe it or not. Facts do not depend on our believing them to be so.

You missed my point entire. A body of knowledge is not the same as a fact. The Mormon Church has a body of knowledge about American history, and I am sure you would agree with me that it is not based on facts.

The laws of nature are facts. We have good reason to believe that much of the body of knowledge of science is spot on those facts - and we have a good idea where it is uncertain.

What happened in Jerusalem in ca. AD 30 is fact. What Christianity claims happened is a body of knowledge. Whether that body of knowledge resembles the facts we cannot tell - though people certainly have opinions on the issue.

Then your above point is answered. What body of knowledge is like that? You've just shown history is also like that.

Right from the start I made it clear I was talking about general truths. History is about specifics.

laws of logic again.

What exactly do the laws of logic tell us about the real world?

Perhaps we should look at the volume of insights from science and compare that to the volume of insights from the laws of logic.

That's also because of the subject matter that is being dealt with. One can't take abstract ideas that are just as real and put them in a jar or do testing on them. Does that mean we don't come to truths about those ideas? Not at all.

Science is all about taking abstract ideas and testing them.

Can you show another field when you come to truths about an abstract idea. How can you be sure the idea is true?

[Sparko]

Come on, AP, if you want to claim "philosophical commitments", have the decency to know what you are talking about, and to be able to express it.

You do know what AP is taking as his college major and career choice, don't you?

I thought not.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Is that a tumbleweed blowing across your argument?

Come on, AP, if you want to claim "philosophical commitments", have the decency to know what you are talking about, and to be able to express it.

I do. That's why I stated what I said. You're making philosophical arguments. No one has made a scientific argument in this thread to show only science can demonstrate truth.

To be consistent with your earlier statement?

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

I take it you have now abandoned that somewhat farcical position as entirely untenable. Quite right too.

Actually, I have already explained what I have stated. There are things that are matters of opinion entirely and no one view can be said to be right. The questions we are discussing are not those.

It has always been my position that people can have opinions on matters of fact.

They can, but we do not treat them as just opinions necessarily. Some opinions have more evidence behind them than others. If you ask me my opinion on the origins of life for instance, that is just my opinion and my not being a scientist, I have no real say so. If you ask Francis Crick or Francis Collins, they may not know for sure, but it is not just opinion.

Sorry, still not getting why you brought it up.

Wait, you don't think naturalism and a naturalistic framework are the same thing, do you?

No, but they often work together. I brought it up to show a problem I have with naturalism and one that naturalism and a naturalistic methodology cannot explain.

Absolutely.

And as I keep pointing out, you are the one who originally said you cannot have an opinion about matters of fact.

Thankfully we are now beyond that.

Actually, I have in fact clarified my position which I understood the misunderstanding on. Mystery to me why you keep bringing it up.

Then this is all part of what Tyson is talking about when he says science.

Think back to what he said. He did not say all philosophy is bunk. He said science is better than the rest. If you are arguing science rests on epistemology, then I would say that science, resting on epistemology (and logic too) is the best way we have of knowing about the world.

Can you scientifically demonstrate that science is the best way we have of knowing about the world?

Do you?

Yes I do. When you talk about the real world, do you include moral truths?

Can you talk me through your thinking here. See, I do not recall Tyson rubbishing that presupposed philosophy - he only said science is the best way to know the world. If science includes that presupposed philosophy, then, well science includes it.

No. Science doesn't include it. Science depends on it. The philosophy is not subsumed under science. It's the reverse. Science is subsumed under philosophy.

In actuality, Tyson has gone against philosophy. http://theweek.com/article/index/261...s-a-philistine

Even some of his fellow atheists have called him to task for this.

That is possible. It is also possible that a single stream will happen upon the truth. So what?

We are talking about how confident we are with the result. If any philosophy can show us what good is with a high degree of confidence, then it will beat the rest. Just tell me which one does that (and show the evidence), and I will admit defeat.

I recommend then reading through the Nicomachean Ethics.

I also recommend that if you think science is the best way, then scientifically instead demonstrate first that goodness exists, and then second, what it is.

Not sure what your point is.

How someone interprets evidence is most often dependent on a philosophy that they hold prior. If they hold that the material world is all that there is, well then not a shock that science reigns supreme, even though science can never establish the philosophy that they hold prior. If they hold that there is more than this world, it's not a shock they don't see science as the highest, and once again, science cannot demonstrate they're right either.

The difference is those of us in the latter camp don't base the prior worldview on science.

So now you are back to your earlier claim:

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

Of course, as you noted above, people can have opinions about matters of act:

"Once again, why should I think that because someone has an opinion on something, they are not dealing with matters of facts?"

You need to get this straight in your head, AP. Pick one or the other.

Yeah. I am straight on it. There are things that the conclusion is a matter of opinion. This is ideas like "Which ice cream flavor is the best?" There are things that are not. Does God exist? Is love a good? What is the nature of the good? How far is the moon from the Earth? You can have opinions on the latter but the views on the questions are not just opinions. They can be informed or uninformed and there is a truth each of them seeks to get to.

My position is, and has always been, that people can have opinions about matters of fact, and so of course some will be nearer to the truth than others. Science is, as far as I can see, the best way we have to be confident about that (for general truths, anyway).

Can you demonstrate scientifically that science is the best way to be confident about general truths?

That is an interesting point. How do know that love is good? What are you actually offering here as a plausible alterative to science?

I'm offering doing philosophy. THe good is that at which all things aim according to Aristotle since all things seek to be and goodness is seeking the actualization of their being.

Note also I am not saying an alternative to science. I am not either/or. I am both/and. Science is the best at studying the natural world of cause and effect on a regular consistent basis. No one here is disputing that. It is not the best at philosophical, moral, literary, historical, aesthetic, and other questions.

So? Of course people have opinions about subjective issues such as ice cream, but they also have opinions about matters of fact. You mentioned the origin of life in an earlier post. Scientists have various opinions about how life started. Some of those opinions will be wrong, one may well be right - but we do not know which one yet.

Correct, but I would not look at the field and say "See? It's all just opinion." Of course there are different opinions, but these are opinions relating to matters of fact instead of matters of opinion.

You should write to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and tell them their web page on it needs updated. Inexplicably, they have neglected to mention that the logical problem of evil has now been conclusively refuted.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ev...rgEviRefDefThe

And as I have already said, philosophy can be used to refute. Science makes positive claims.

And philosophy also makes positive claims, about how we can know the world and know anything about it and how we can know philosophical truths such as moral and aesthetic truths.

Not sure how you think this supports your argument.

Because I think Nietzsche was a consistent atheist. He knew that if you go with just science and atheism, you don't need to talk about goodness anymore. Remember the story of the madman? Who were the people that he was mocking in it?

If you can show how we know something is true in a field outside science, then you win the argument. To be honest, I am not even sure what you mean by "true in literature".

True in literature is quite simple.

I write a statement. You are unsure what it means. You ask me what my text means. I explain it. Then you can know what the truth of what the statement is.

Something that is true in a field outside of science? Sure. Love is a good. Human beings are valuable for who they are and not what they do. It is wrong to torture babies for fun. The Mona Lisa is a beautiful work of art. Jerusalem fell to the Romans in 70 A.D. The Law of Noncontradiction applies to reality. If X is necessarily true, non-X is necessarily false.

You missed my point entire. A body of knowledge is not the same as a fact. The Mormon Church has a body of knowledge about American history, and I am sure you would agree with me that it is not based on facts.

Then they are not knowledge. Knowledge is by definition true. An area of learning though if true is true whether you believe it or not. If God exists and exists in a Trinity, that's true whether anyone believes it or not.

The laws of nature are facts. We have good reason to believe that much of the body of knowledge of science is spot on those facts - and we have a good idea where it is uncertain.

What happened in Jerusalem in ca. AD 30 is fact. What Christianity claims happened is a body of knowledge. Whether that body of knowledge resembles the facts we cannot tell - though people certainly have opinions on the issue.

That's kind of the point. Whatever happens is a fact and it is true whether you believe it or not. Scientific facts are true whether you believe them or not. So is EVERY OTHER FACT OUT THERE.

Right from the start I made it clear I was talking about general truths. History is about specifics.

And historical facts are facts whether you believe in them or not.

What exactly do the laws of logic tell us about the real world?

Contradictions cannot occur in the real world for one thing. That's a given in science. If you do experiment X and the results are Y and then do it again the exact same way and the results are non-Y, you know that something is up with that and you will need to more work. You don't just say both of them are true and move on.

Perhaps we should look at the volume of insights from science and compare that to the volume of insights from the laws of logic.

Perhaps we should consider the fact that the only way you can talk about facts of science is if the laws of logic apply prior.

Science is all about taking abstract ideas and testing them.

Can you show another field when you come to truths about an abstract idea. How can you be sure the idea is true?

An abstract idea is in this case a position that is not material in nature. For instance, triangles exist in reality. Triangles are material. Triangularity is not. You cannot take triangularity and put it in a jar. Triangles can only be known through material means, but the triangularity is not material.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You do know what AP is taking as his college major and career choice, don't you?

I thought not.

You're behind on the times. My area of study now is NT. Mike thought my stuff was really good in that area and encouraged me to go that route.

[Sparko]

You're behind on the times. My area of study now is NT. Mike thought my stuff was really good in that area and encouraged me to go that route.

Do you have any scientific evidence of that?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Do you have any scientific evidence of that?

Nope!

[OingoBoingo]

You should write to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and tell them their web page on it needs updated. Inexplicably, they have neglected to mention that the logical problem of evil has now been conclusively refuted.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ev...rgEviRefDefThe

It should probably be noted that the Stanford page you linked to was submitted and edited by Prof. Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado Boulder. Tooley is an atheist who's debated Alvin Plantinga on just this topic (as well as William Lane Craig on the existence of God). So your link may not be the most objective article on the subject.

For a more balanced view, you may want to check the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webpage on the subject http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8. The IEP article was submitted and edited by Prof. James Beebe from the University at Buffalo. As far as I know Beebe has no beef with either Tooley or Plantinga. He takes a relatively neutral stance on the topic, acknowledges the generally held view among philosophers that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense does currently appear to succeed at refuting the logical problem of evil, but also notes potential problems with Plantinga's argument.

[Sparko]

Nope!

Do you have any scientific evidence of your lack of scientific evidence?

[Tassman]

I never said they could prove scientific propositions alone. Science is just one branch of reasoning, you also have philosophy and math. Each has it's own uses and can be used in the other disciplines as well as stand on it's own. Science is about learning about our physical universe. But it can't tell us about non-physical things like math or reasoning itself. And philosophy can tell us about such things, and about truth, but sometimes science is useful to confirm parts of it. Math tells us about logical calculations and can help us come up with theories and ideas about how various thing work in relation to each other, or it can be totally abstract. Sometimes it overlaps with philosophy and sometimes with science.

Science is more than “just one branch of reasoning”. As well as using reason it derives its knowledge via empirical activity and experiment. Consequently science is capable of generating new factual truths about nature, whereas logic, maths and philosophy can only redefine and reformulate existing factual knowledge.

But without philosophy you can't even come up with a hypothesis to test with science. You have to use reason and come up with an idea that needs testing before you can test it.

Of course you can. Science is the study of physical al world using systematic observation, inferences and experiment. The only role of philosophy in science is in ensuing logical consistency and guarding against errors of false inference.

And the argument about whether JimL is human or not has absolutely NO IMPACT on whether "If JimL is human then he is not non-human" is a true statement. It would be true in either case. If I change it to say "If JimL's dog is human, then his dog is not non-human" it is just as true a statement.

It requires no science or empirical evidence to prove, the logic stands alone, unassailed. It is the law of non-contradiction. It is true upon the face of it. Something cannot be "A" and "non-A" at the same time.

It is science that has established the facts underlying the premise in your example, not Logic. Jim is a human mammal of the species Homo sapiens and distinguished from other mammals by superior mental development etc. Logic hasn't established this fact, science has. Your example is just an exercise in logical consistency based, in this instance, upon the existing understanding of what a “human being” is. It doesn't prove any “facts” as such and nor does it establish new facts. It is merely a deductive argument based upon a given premise.

[The Pixie]

I do. That's why I stated what I said. You're making philosophical arguments. No one has made a scientific argument in this thread to show only science can demonstrate truth.

I am making an observational argument. I have observed that science is good at finding stuff out, and philosophy is not. I am continuing to observe you failing to give an example of philosophy telling us anything about the real world (with the limited exception of the laws of logic).

Actually, I have already explained what I have stated. There are things that are matters of opinion entirely and no one view can be said to be right. The questions we are discussing are not those.

But what of matters of fact? Are you going to allow people to have opinions on them, when they are not known, in this post or not? Perhaps you intend to flick between the two, whilst pretending that I say you cannot, like you did in your ladt post?

They can, but we do not treat them as just opinions necessarily. Some opinions have more evidence behind them than others. If you ask me my opinion on the origins of life for instance, that is just my opinion and my not being a scientist, I have no real say so. If you ask Francis Crick or Francis Collins, they may not know for sure, but it is not just opinion.

It is opinion based on limited or ambiguous evidence. And sure, some people have a more informed opinion than others on a certain topic. But it is still opinion.

No, but they often work together. I brought it up to show a problem I have with naturalism and one that naturalism and a naturalistic methodology cannot explain.

It looks to me like you are conflating naturalism - which is irrelevant to the discussion - with a naturalistic framework.

If you have a problem with a naturalistic framework, show that there is a problem with a naturalistic framework, and not with naturalism.

Actually, I have in fact clarified my position which I understood the misunderstanding on. Mystery to me why you keep bringing it up.

I keep bringing it up because I am still not clear what your position is, and certainly in your last post it seemed to flip around from one thing to another.

Can you scientifically demonstrate that science is the best way we have of knowing about the world?

No. It is an observation. Like I can observe that this is the longest pencil or that is the biggest apple. You do not need science or philosophy to make observations like that.

Yes I do. When you talk about the real world, do you include moral truths?

Yes.

No. Science doesn't include it. Science depends on it. The philosophy is not subsumed under science. It's the reverse. Science is subsumed under philosophy.

Okay, you can look at it that way. I have no problem with that.

Now relate that to what Tyson said.

In actuality, Tyson has gone against philosophy. http://theweek.com/article/index/261...s-a-philistine

Even some of his fellow atheists have called him to task for this.

I am discussing the one specific comment he made. He is virtually unknown here in the UK; I am not about to defend his entire output for the simple reason I have no idea what it is.

I recommend then reading through the Nicomachean Ethics.

I also recommend that if you think science is the best way, then scientifically instead demonstrate first that goodness exists, and then second, what it is.

I recommend you read some good textbooks on evolution, but I am guessing your response will be similar to mine.

How someone interprets evidence is most often dependent on a philosophy that they hold prior. If they hold that the material world is all that there is, well then not a shock that science reigns supreme, even though science can never establish the philosophy that they hold prior. If they hold that there is more than this world, it's not a shock they don't see science as the highest, and once again, science cannot demonstrate they're right either.

The difference is those of us in the latter camp don't base the prior worldview on science.

Here is some news for you, AP - some scientists are theists.

Christians even.

They do not start with a philosophy that the material world is all that there is, and somehow they still manage to do science - and do it reasonably well too.

Now if you have a problem with a naturalistic framework, please spell it out. But do try to keep in mind that it is different to naturalism.

Yeah. I am straight on it. There are things that the conclusion is a matter of opinion. This is ideas like "Which ice cream flavor is the best?" There are things that are not. Does God exist? Is love a good? What is the nature of the good? How far is the moon from the Earth? You can have opinions on the latter but the views on the questions are not just opinions. They can be informed or uninformed and there is a truth each of them seeks to get to.

Great, you do get it.

So why did you say earlier that:

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

Can you even see that that prior statement contradicts your current position? If you have changed your mind, then that is fine, but do please state that that is the case, so I can understand what your position is.

I'm offering doing philosophy. THe good is that at which all things aim according to Aristotle since all things seek to be and goodness is seeking the actualization of their being.

Note also I am not saying an alternative to science. I am not either/or. I am both/and. Science is the best at studying the natural world of cause and effect on a regular consistent basis. No one here is disputing that. It is not the best at philosophical, moral, literary, historical, aesthetic, and other questions.

No one says science is the best at those thing. Think about Tyson's claim. Science is right, whether you agree with its claims or not. He is not claiming it is better at literature or aesthetics.

Correct, but I would not look at the field and say "See? It's all just opinion." Of course there are different opinions, but these are opinions relating to matters of fact instead of matters of opinion.

But we do not know what those facts are, do we? Unlike in science...

And philosophy also makes positive claims, about how we can know the world and know anything about it and how we can know philosophical truths such as moral and aesthetic truths.

Right, philosophy makes positive claims, and philosophy can show that something is false.

But science can show that its positive claims are right. Can you see the difference?

This is my view. I think most would agree with what has been said, but some few who defend moral relativism or some form of it today would not. Nietzsche most certainly would not and would even call any atheists who want to get at goodness today fools. Get rid of God and you get rid of everything connected with him. He even wanted to get rid of grammar.

Not sure how you think this supports your argument.

Because I think Nietzsche was a consistent atheist. He knew that if you go with just science and atheism, you don't need to talk about goodness anymore. Remember the story of the madman? Who were the people that he was mocking in it?

Who is arguing that "you go with just science and atheism"? This is just an elaborate straw man. Science is not the same as atheism - as I said before, there are even some Christians who are scientists.

True in literature is quite simple.

I write a statement. You are unsure what it means. You ask me what my text means. I explain it. Then you can know what the truth of what the statement is.

Now if you can explain why I should care...

Something that is true in a field outside of science? Sure. Love is a good. Human beings are valuable for who they are and not what they do. It is wrong to torture babies for fun. The Mona Lisa is a beautiful work of art. Jerusalem fell to the Romans in 70 A.D. The Law of Noncontradiction applies to reality. If X is necessarily true, non-X is necessarily false.

And I should have said; and showed how you know them to be true. Can you do that too?

Then they are not knowledge. Knowledge is by definition true. An area of learning though if true is true whether you believe it or not. If God exists and exists in a Trinity, that's true whether anyone believes it or not.

Then I used the wrong word. Perhaps a "system of beliefs" would have been better.

An area of learning if false, is false whether you believe it or not. If God does not exist, then that too is true whether anyone believes it or not. The problem is we do not know which it is.

With science we have a body of knowledge, and as Tyson pointed out, we have that body of knowledge, whether you choose to believe it or not. With theology and other philosophies (besides the laws of logic), we have systems of belief that may or may not be correct.

That's kind of the point. Whatever happens is a fact and it is true whether you believe it or not. Scientific facts are true whether you believe them or not. So is EVERY OTHER FACT OUT THERE.

But science gives us confidence that we know the facts. Relativity is a fact, and we know it, and we are confident that we know it. Something happened in Jerusalem in ca. AD 30. What that was is a fact, but we do not know what the fact is.

Perhaps we should consider the fact that the only way you can talk about facts of science is if the laws of logic apply prior.

Be my guest.

Be sure to explain it in the light of Tyson's quote. If science requires the laws of logic (and I agree it does), then Tyson's statement about science must necessarily have encompassed that usage.

An abstract idea is in this case a position that is not material in nature. For instance, triangles exist in reality. Triangles are material. Triangularity is not. You cannot take triangularity and put it in a jar. Triangles can only be known through material means, but the triangularity is not material.

So?

ETA: By the way, I started a thread about Arianism (or the core belief anyway):
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rdinate-To-God

So far, only got opinions on which verses are important and which should be ignored.

[Sparko]

Science is more than “just one branch of reasoning”. As well as using reason it derives its knowledge via empirical activity and experiment. Consequently science is capable of generating new factual truths about nature, whereas logic, maths and philosophy can only redefine and reformulate existing factual knowledge.

Of course you can. Science is the study of physical al world using systematic observation, inferences and experiment. The only role of philosophy in science is in ensuing logical consistency and guarding against errors of false inference.

more

without philosophy you would not be able to draw any conclusions or inferences from your observational data in the first place.

What I find completely ironic is that you are using philosophy to argue against philosophy. I see absolutely no observational or empirical data presented by you that this is the case. Please provide some or admit you are wrong.

It is science that has established the facts underlying the premise in your example, not Logic. Jim is a human mammal of the species Homo sapiens and distinguished from other mammals by superior mental development etc. Logic hasn't established this fact, science has. Your example is just an exercise in logical consistency based, in this instance, upon the existing understanding of what a “human being” is. It doesn't prove any “facts” as such and nor does it establish new facts. It is merely a deductive argument based upon a given premise.

My goodness, between you and JimL, I think a squirrel has more reasoning skills. The statement was not about if JimL was human or not. It was about whether something can be one thing and not that thing at the same time. It can't.

You could replace JimL and Human with anything you want and it would still be true.

If Tassman is an idiot, then he is not a non-idiot
If a piece of wood is blue, then it is not non-blue
If your dog has teeth, then your dog doesn't have no teeth.

Get it? It is a true statement. "If something is A, it cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same manner." <---- please prove me wrong if you disagree. And don't use philosophy or logic, provide scientific evidence.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I am making an observational argument. I have observed that science is good at finding stuff out, and philosophy is not. I am continuing to observe you failing to give an example of philosophy telling us anything about the real world (with the limited exception of the laws of logic).

You've been told about the laws of logic. You've been told that love is good and torturing babies for fun is evil and that X is necessarily true, non-X is necessarily false.

But what of matters of fact? Are you going to allow people to have opinions on them, when they are not known, in this post or not? Perhaps you intend to flick between the two, whilst pretending that I say you cannot, like you did in your ladt post?

Of course there can be different opinions on matters of fact. I said as much in the last post.

It is opinion based on limited or ambiguous evidence. And sure, some people have a more informed opinion than others on a certain topic. But it is still opinion.

Oh it's opinion, but I would not say it is just opinion. It is not the case that one theory is as good as another necessarily. There is a true explanation somewhere for the origins of life. The same for the existence of goodness.

It looks to me like you are conflating naturalism - which is irrelevant to the discussion - with a naturalistic framework.

Naturalism is quite relevant. It is the philosophy underneath that is saying that science is the best means of attaining truth. (And all the while, no scientific arguments have been given.)

If you have a problem with a naturalistic framework, show that there is a problem with a naturalistic framework, and not with naturalism.

I have no problem with looking for naturalistic means. I have a problem with the assumption of naturalism that all explanations for anything whatsoever must be naturalistic.

I keep bringing it up because I am still not clear what your position is, and certainly in your last post it seemed to flip around from one thing to another.

I don't know how I can be clearer.

No. It is an observation. Like I can observe that this is the longest pencil or that is the biggest apple. You do not need science or philosophy to make observations like that.

So you're saying science is the best way to determine truth and yet that truth you cannot demonstrate scientifically?

That's a problem.

Yes.

Okay. How do you know a moral truth? Demonstrate it scientifically.

Okay, you can look at it that way. I have no problem with that.

Now relate that to what Tyson said.

Already done. Tyson again has the same problem. He acts like what he says is unique to science. It's not. It's true of every field.

I am discussing the one specific comment he made. He is virtually unknown here in the UK; I am not about to defend his entire output for the simple reason I have no idea what it is.

I included a link to the article in my blog....

I recommend you read some good textbooks on evolution, but I am guessing your response will be similar to mine.

If you really want to know how moral truths are demonstrated, then the way to do that is to read the primary sources or just say "This is not my area and I'm willing to accept the conclusion of greater minds than I in it."

I don't read books on evolution because I am not a scientist and I don't argue science as science because that's not my focus. It makes no difference to my interpretation of Genesis or my argument for the resurrection so it's a non-issue. I am happy to accept any claim that can be scientifically demonstrated. If I woke up tomorrow and saw the headline in the paper

"SBC admits that they have to accept that evolution is a fact." I would say "Cool" and move on.

If instead I read "NAS admits that evolution is no longer a tenable theory" I would say "Cool" and move on.

Here is some news for you, AP - some scientists are theists.

Christians even.

They do not start with a philosophy that the material world is all that there is, and somehow they still manage to do science - and do it reasonably well too.

Now if you have a problem with a naturalistic framework, please spell it out. But do try to keep in mind that it is different to naturalism.

That's exactly the point. I never denied some scientists are Christians and they would still agree that science is not the highest way of knowing something. I have no problem with seeking a natural explanation, but I also hold at the same time that one should be open to a suprahuman explanation if the evidence shows that. Again, how you do science in the lab does not depend much on your worldview. The experiment works just as well for a YEC as it does for a hardcore atheist. What is most important is the worldview that is brought prior that determines the place one gives science in their epistemology.

Great, you do get it.

So why did you say earlier that:

"Things that are a matter of opinion are matters that do not have a certain truth behind them, such as which ice cream flavor is best. WHat is a matter of fact are things that can be studied even if they can't be studied right now."

Can you even see that that prior statement contradicts your current position? If you have changed your mind, then that is fine, but do please state that that is the case, so I can understand what your position is.

Because there's a difference between facts people have opinions on and things that are purely matters of opinion. What ice cream flavor is best? Well that's the latter and it would be foolish to have a debate on that one. Is there life on other planets? That's the former. Even if we had no evidence and no way of knowing the answer to that question for sure, we could still have opinions and the opinions would relate to matters of fact.

The difference is between what is an opinion and what is a matter of opinion.

No one says science is the best at those thing. Think about Tyson's claim. Science is right, whether you agree with its claims or not. He is not claiming it is better at literature or aesthetics.

And the same applies to EVERY OTHER FIELD. All facts are facts whether you believe in them or not. Note also that a method is not true. A method works. It is not that the scientific method is true, but rather it is that it works best at what it is meant to do.

But we do not know what those facts are, do we? Unlike in science...

Irrelevant. Our lack of knowledge of a fact does not make it any less a fact.

Suppose today we get visited by aliens from another planet and we find they have been in the universe billions of years. Their existence was a fact before we knew about it. That doesn't change once we have it factually demonstrated.

Right, philosophy makes positive claims, and philosophy can show that something is false.

But science can show that its positive claims are right. Can you see the difference?

Actually, I think the greatest philosophers also make arguments to show that their claims are right. It's just a lot harder to do so.

Who is arguing that "you go with just science and atheism"? This is just an elaborate straw man. Science is not the same as atheism - as I said before, there are even some Christians who are scientists.

Of course there are, but I am saying that Nietzsche followed his atheism to the logical conclusion and found that there can be no basis for such truths as goodness, which you've admitted are real, and yet science cannot tell us what they are.

Now if you can explain why I should care...

Because you don't know that scientifically...

And I should have said; and showed how you know them to be true. Can you do that too?

Let's start with the claim Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. All our archaeological evidence indicates that. All our sources that write about that, including Josephus show that, and then all the scholars in the field I know of agree with this. Now could someone be skeptical like a postmodern? Sure. That same skepticism could apply to science as well.

Then I used the wrong word. Perhaps a "system of beliefs" would have been better.

An area of learning if false, is false whether you believe it or not. If God does not exist, then that too is true whether anyone believes it or not. The problem is we do not know which it is.

With science we have a body of knowledge, and as Tyson pointed out, we have that body of knowledge, whether you choose to believe it or not. With theology and other philosophies (besides the laws of logic), we have systems of belief that may or may not be correct.

Same problem again. If theology is a body of knowledge, then yes, it is true whether you believe it or not. All bodies of knowledge are the exact same way.

But science gives us confidence that we know the facts. Relativity is a fact, and we know it, and we are confident that we know it. Something happened in Jerusalem in ca. AD 30. What that was is a fact, but we do not know what the fact is.

Who is this we? I for instance would say that I know what happened. You would say you don't know. If the standard for knowledge is that everyone has to agree, then we might as well say no one knows anything.

Be my guest.

Be sure to explain it in the light of Tyson's quote. If science requires the laws of logic (and I agree it does), then Tyson's statement about science must necessarily have encompassed that usage.

That would again mean that science is dependent on philosophy. Remove the philosophy and science becomes impossible.

So?

This is just clarification. Most of us who are not nominalists in some way hold to the existence of realities like triangularity even if there were no triangles in existence.

[Sparko]

This thread is so full of irony.

And the point that pixie, jiml and tassman are attempting to use philosophy to prove that only science can prove anything is true is completely lost on them.

[robertb]

Science doesn't prove anything to be true. But It does show you what is probably false.

[JimL]

Science doesn't prove anything to be true. But It does show you what is probably false.

For all intents and purposes, science proves many things to be true. Unless the world is a simulation of some sort, which was Sparko's argument, then science has proven many of the laws that govern it. Neither philosophy or logic has ever done that.